All they had to do was remove the combat from the game, develop the story further and improve the level design.

By doing those 3 things it would have been one of the best games ever. There is so much potential in the Mirrors Edge gameplay but it was bogged down no doubt by idiot execs insisting you couldn't have a first person game without a gun.

I was really hoping for a sequel that fixed the issues I mentioned but I guess we will have to wait for a better economic climate.

Click to expand...

I could actually agree with this. I found the combat very much forced, and considering how many people I ended up killing, no wonder I was enemy number one.

And the red tip-of system could have used an imrpovement. I ran past many elevator call buttons and small items just to get stuck for a while.

(disclaimer: "too expensive" for me is >£25 on PC. To give context, Assassins Creed 2 was £24.99 on release on Play.com)

Click to expand...

Cheap ass! Hehe, I'm quite happy to pay decent money for a decent game. I'm only ever bothered by a game's price if it doesn't live up to my expectations when I actually play it (looking at you, Quake Warts...)

Mirror's Edge had a bit of an iffy story, some dodgy voice acting. I've always considered it a game that was lacking 'something' that would make it truly great.

Click to expand...

That's what I loved about it - they spent time polishing the gameplay, which is the core gaming, and not wasting too much on getting high-end voice talent, and wasting tons of time on cutscenes. Thought I disagree with you on the story.

Strong female, realistic character, beautiful art direction, and some of the most original and excellent gameplay around, with little hand-holding. It was just fun to play for no other reason than its mechanics.

Strong female, realistic character, beautiful art direction, and some of the most original and excellent gameplay around, with little hand-holding. It was just fun to play for no other reason than its mechanics.

Oh, well. More brown military shooters! MOOOAR!

Click to expand...

so true. well said.

let's hope EA puts the art directors to good use, to lighten up other games.

I'm willing to bet that EA/DICE wanted to make the sequel a AAA-game, and for that money, the bean counters said "Nay."

That was what I loved about ME, it was a single-A game from a big developer, raw gameplay, no ******** extended cutscenes or expensive Hollywood actors or spending thousands of hours eyelash rendering.

Real shame, Mirrors Edge was sunk by reviewers who thought they were playing Quake. I didn't pick up a gun until about 2/3 through the game, and then only used it to snipe people in the distance.

If they had ditched the ability to weild guns completely, I think it would have been recieved far more positively. EA gave me a free copy, but I'd have hapilly paid for it. True the story wasn't great (and the ending with positively anemic) but it lots of fun to play and the sense of movement simply hasn't been achieved from a first person perspective before or since.

Real shame, Mirrors Edge was sunk by reviewers who thought they were playing Quake. I didn't pick up a gun until about 2/3 through the game, and then only used it to snipe people in the distance.

Click to expand...

Aye. That's what annoyed me about a lot of the reviews - "GAME IS FIRST PERSON, BUT NO GUNS! FAIL. ALSO, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT FIRST PERSON PLATFORMING DOESN'T WORK AND CANT' EVER WORK." And then you can just picture them crossing their arms and pouting for the rest of the review. And then whinging about how it doesn't have multiplayer.

God forbid they ever experience something new. I remember one guy bitching about there being a blue tree in the game (I have never seen that tree, but that guy must have a stroke when he plays a fantasy game.)

People whine about endless military shooters, but always line up to buy them. But they also whine more about things not fitting into their neat little boxes.

If they had ditched the ability to weild guns completely, I think it would have been recieved far more positively. EA gave me a free copy, but I'd have hapilly paid for it. True the story wasn't great (and the ending with positively anemic) but it lots of fun to play and the sense of movement simply hasn't been achieved from a first person perspective before or since.

Click to expand...

I think there was an appropriate amount of gunplay, and it was done well - ie, guns were a pain in the arse to use, and should only be used sparingly. I thought the weakest part was the quicktime events of disarming. I think "reaction time" was shoe-horned in to compensate for the limited window. They were actually going to give Faith a pair of pistols, but I'm glad they ditched those; otherwise it would've just been judged a shooter with platform elements.

The story was a refreshing change - saving your sister instead of saving the world - it's a very feminine storyline. Personal.